G.R. No.

148571

September 24, 2002

GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Represented by the Philippine Department of Justice, petitioner,
vs.
HON. GUILLERMO PURGANAN, Presiding Judge Regional Trial Court of Manila and
MARC JIMENEZ a.k.a. MARCIO BATACAN CRESPO, respondent

Facts: The United States of America, pursuant to the existing RP-US extradition treaty, requested
the extradition of Mark B. Jimenez. Upon receipt of the request, the secretary of foreign affairs (SFA)
transmitted them to the secretary of justice (SOJ) for appropriate action. In such event, the RTC held
that Jimenez shell be deprived of the right to notice and hearing during the evaluation stage of the
extradition process. Thereafter the US government, through DOJ, filed Petition for Extradition and
Jimenezs immediate arrest, to avoid flight. Before the RTC could render its decision, Jimenez filed
an "Urgent Manifestation/Ex-Parte Motion," praying that his application for an arrest warrant be set
for hearing, which was granted. During which, the lower court issued its questioned July 3, 2001
Order, directing the issuance of a warrant for his arrest and fixing bail for his temporary liberty at one
million pesos in cash. After Jimenez had surrendered his passport and posted the required cash
bond, he was granted provisional liberty via the challenged Order dated July 4, 2001. Thus, Petition
prays for the lifting of the bail Order, the cancellation of the bond, and the taking of Jimenez into
legal custody.
Issue:
Whether or not Jimenez is entitled to notice and hearing before a warrant for his arrest can be
issued.
Whether or not he is entitled to bail and to provisional liberty while the extradition proceedings are
pending.
Held: By nature, extradition proceedings are not equivalent to a criminal case in which guilt or
innocence is determined. Consequently, an extradition case is not one in which the constitutional
rights of the accused are necessarily available. Having once escaped the jurisdiction of the
requesting state, the reasonable prima facie presumption is that the person would escape again if
given the opportunity. Hence, if the judge is convinced that a prima facie case exists, he immediately
Issue a warrant for the arrest of the potential extraditee and summons him or her to answer and to
appear at scheduled hearings on the petition. Potential extraditees are entitled to the rights to due
process and to fundamental fairness. Due process does not always call for a prior opportunity to be
heard. A subsequent opportunity is sufficient due to the flight risk involved. Indeed, available during
the hearings on the petition and the answer is the full chance to be heard and to enjoy fundamental
fairness that is compatible with the summary nature of extradition.
After being taken into custody, potential extraditees may apply for bail. Since the applicants have a
history of absconding, they have the burden of showing that (a) there is no flight risk and no danger
to the community; and (b) there exist special, humanitarian or compelling circumstances. In
extradition cases, bail is not a matter of right; it is subject to judicial discretion in the context of the
peculiar facts of each case.